Get repository packages

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful context by saying it returns a wrapper containing a list of Package models and documents MissingParameterError and ParameterError, though it does not explain pagination, filtering, or authentication implications.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the Args section uses **kwargs in a way that does not match the explicit 16-parameter schema, making that part structurally inaccurate and low-value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a complex 16-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema. The description provides the return wrapper and error behavior, but it omits the semantics of nearly all parameters and does not explain filtering or pagination, leaving an agent unable to use the tool effectively beyond supplying project_id.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for 16 parameters. The description only mentions **kwargs and project_id, leaving parameters such as page, per_page, sort, status, package_name, package_type, and include_versionless completely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: get information about repository packages, scoped to a specific project. It is clear enough to identify the tool, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling package tools such as download or publish, nor does it clarify whether it lists packages or retrieves metadata for a single package.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives almost no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the project scope and missing project_id error, but does not say when to choose it over package download/publish tools or other repository-related getters.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.